1. Trident nuclear submarines will be reduced from 18 vessels to 14 by the year 2003. The subs, some of which no longer patrol on full alert, will continue to be based at the Bangor base in Washington state and at King's Bay, Ga.
2. Instead of having older, C-4 nuclear missiles aboard some of the Tridents, all 14 of the surviving submarines are to be armed with newer, more accurate D-5 nuclear missiles. Currently, 10 Trident subs are armed with D-5 missiles.
3. The number of B-52 heavy bombers will be reduced from the 94 planned a year ago to 66. These planes will continue to be capable of dropping either conventional or nuclear arms. They are in addition to a planned purchase of 20 B-2 stealth bombers and an existing fleet of more than 90 B-1 bombers.
4. The entire B-1 bomber fleet will be re-configured to a non-nuclear role. When brought into the Air Force bomber fleet in the 1980s, the B-1 was designed for a nuclear war.
5. All Navy surface ships will eliminate their ability to carry nuclear weapons. Although none now carry them, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch said the Pentagon has decided that nuclear training for the ships' crews, as well as nuclear equipment, will be discarded.
6. Navy attack submarines will retain the ability to fire nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles.
7. One form of that "hedge" concerns the U.S. nuclear warheads being taken out of active service in order to comply with the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and its sequel, the 1993 START II deal. Instead of them all being destroyed, some will be put in a kind of reserve so America can rearm fairly quickly in case the prospect of nuclear confrontation arises again.
The START treaties require that long-range missiles be destroyed, but not their warheads.
Perry says this approach is necessary in light of the Clinton administration's view that Russia's efforts to convert to democracy may fail, and that a regime in Moscow may arise that is hostile to the United States.
8. Norris estimated that the U.S. "shadow arsenal" of nuclear weapons held in reserve after the START treaties are fully implemented early in the next decade could include as many as 3,200 warheads for long-range bombers and missiles. That is only slightly fewer than the 3,500 it will keep in active service.
In other words, the U.S. arsenal -- counting those in reserve -- could be nearly twice as large as advertised under the START treaties.
9. John Deutch, the deputy defense secretary, told reporters Thursday that the administration, in a nearly yearlong study it called the Nuclear Posture Review, had considered eliminating one whole class of nuclear weapons -- the silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.
But in the end it was decided that the ICBMs -- one leg in the "triad" of U.S. nuclear strategy, along with long-range bombers and missile-toting submarines -- should be kept, Deutch said. One calculation made in deciding to keep the ICBMs was that they can be "uploaded," meaning additional warheads could be placed on them to beef up the U.S. force if rearmament were needed.
As it is, the administration intends to carry through with the Bush administration's plan to reduce the number of ICBMs to about 500, and to leave just one warhead on each.
10. continue low-rate production of D-5 long-range missiles that are carried aboard Trident submarines. Reason: to maintain the technical base to produce larger numbers of missiles should rearmament become necessary.
11. current levels of nuclear weapons in Europe remain the same.
Perry said that since 1988 and the end of the Cold War, the United States has significantly changed its nuclear position. The total active nuclear stockpile has been reduced by 59 percent and will be cut a total of 79 percent by 2003, he said.
He also said the United States was spending about $50 billion a year on its nuclear program, a figure that has now been cut to some $15 billion.
12. Ambassador Stephen Ledogar, the U.S. representative to the negotiations in Geneva on a comprehensive nuclear test ban. He reported that the Conference on Disarmament "has responded vigorously to the call of the United States and other nations" to conclude the CTB treaty.
13. Some senior U.S. officials had argued strenuously in favor of arms talks, but they were overruled in favor of the Pentagon's view that Washington and Moscow must first ratify and begin to implement two existing treaties, the officials said.
14. Clinton also accepted the study's conclusion that Washington should retain its current policy on use of nuclear weapons, rejecting the arguments of some officials who wanted to adopt a "no first-use" policy.
15. Clinton further agreed with the Pentagon study's recommendation that Washington should retain roughly 480 nuclear weapons in Europe to help deter an attack on U.S. allies. He also endorsed a military plan to install more accurate, nuclear-tipped missiles on four additional U.S. strategic submarines.
16. At the same time, Clinton authorized a detailed plan to restructure U.S. nuclear forces to accommodate the arms cuts required by the Start II treaty signed with Moscow during the Bush administration. The number of U.S. Trident submarines will be trimmed from 18 to 14, the B-52 strategic bomber force will be cut from 94 to 66, and 150 of the existing 450 Minuteman III missiles will be eliminated, the officials said.
Even with these cuts, the classified U.S. nuclear war plan will still aim at destroying roughly 2,500 Russian targets with U.S. nuclear arms in the event of all-out war, the officials said. The existing U.S. arsenal of 6,000 strategic weapons will be cut to roughly 3,500 under the Start II treaty, leaving ample extra weapons to fulfill the targeting requirements in Russia.
BACKGROUND
Clinton's decision grew out of a study known as Presidential Review Directive 34, which was meant to chart the direction of U.S. nuclear weapons policy in the next decade.
When the study was begun last year, then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin promised it would be a "bottom-up" review of nuclear "policy, doctrine, force structure, operations, safety and security and arms control" - akin to the "bottom-up" review of conventional military forces undertaken in summer 1993.
But four U.S. officials said that after Aspin was replaced by William J. Perry in January, the scope of the nuclear review was scaled back and key work turned over to military officers and Bush administration holdovers.
The review process caused unusual acrimony between senior military and civilian officials at the Pentagon. At one point, several deputy military chiefs of staff wrote a joint letter of protest to Pentagon superiors that Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter had ignored their objections to several options for arms reductions, a charge that Carter denied.
But ultimately, the options were not adopted. "These civilian guys were fearful of pressing the military too far," said one official who had argued for more cuts. "Meanwhile, (Secretary of State Warren) Christopher was completely disengaged, and (national security adviser Anthony) Lake was preoccupied."